29 Jan 2009
Well, it looks as if the concensus from the scientific community is 'yes - it is time'. The scientists have been given .
29 Jan 2009
Climate change: Scientists doubt claims over sea 'fertilisation'
Proposals to combat global warming by sowing the sea with iron to promote carbon-gobbling plankton may be badly overblown, according to a study published on Wednesday...Some oceanographers, looking at published data, contend the sequestration yield is so poor that iron would have to be dumped over vast areas to make any inroad into the greenhouse-gas problem. This would make the technique commercially unviable in addition to posing unknown risks for marine ecology, they say.
'Geo-engineering could cool globe'
Stratospheric aerosol injections and sunshades in space have "by far" the greatest potential to cool the climate by 2050...
"The Panel (on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming) calculated that adding stratospheric aerosol dust to the stratosphere would cost just pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated." --"The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering"
By the way, here is a practical mechanical method of removing CO2 from the ocean:
"Researchers at Harvard University and Pennsylvania State University have invented a technology, inspired by nature, to reduce the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human emissions. By electrochemically removing hydrochloric acid from the ocean and then neutralizing the acid by reaction with silicate (volcanic) rocks, the researchers say they can accelerate natural chemical weathering, permanently transferring CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean. Unlike other ocean sequestration processes, the new technology does not further acidify the ocean and may be beneficial to coral reefs. The innovative approach to tackling climate change is reported in the Nov. 7 issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology..." --"Engineered weathering process could mitigate global warming," EurekAlert, 7 Nov '07
29 Jan 2009
"I believe we should be researching geo-engineering options only out of academic interest, and that if we get to the point at which geo-engineering is required, we will already be too late to avert disaster for humanity."
The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution. --Climate Resistance, Mar '08
Here is what Climate Code Red says:
--Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.
--There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to "thermal inertia", or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.
--If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don't increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).
--Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assuming very optimistically that emissions don't increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.
"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
19 Feb 2009
Yes, what I have read adds-up ok. So far we have all seen much of "Windfarms" , many believe to be some kind of a "big blow in the right direction" ? Sadly this is not at all the case. I will just state here - email me for reasons - Turbine-Alternator Devices - TADs ? - have an unusual "economy of scale"
That is to say, the cost of facing any given area of wind is a necklace-shaped function of the (Log of) the size of the TADs deployed !! After some 20 years of solo research effort, I now know that the lowest region of this (Catenery) curve occurrs for diameters of around 0.5 to 1metre. Not 40m !!
This fact largely accounts for the relative %returns-of-cost of typical "windfarms" to that of a Very perfect design of TAD in the size-region of the lowest cost. E.g. about 0.13% cf 5%
The seriously disturbing fact, though, for me, is that to date no organizations - from government departments to environmentally concerned websites have taken the slightest interest in this. e.g. BWEA
AWEA uk's DtI rightthe way to county councils opposing windfarms.
29 Jun 2009
Back on the topic of geo-engineering, this makes for interesting reading.
I support their conclusion: that there are many 'ripe' low-hanging fruit to reach for before we start risking geo-engineering.
07 Aug 2009
Here's a geo-engineering technique I hadn't come across before: !
04 Sep 2009
A good article from the New Scientist saying that .
What do you think?